Sher Singh @ Bachhu vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 2494 Del

$-
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          DECIDED ON : 24th MAY, 2013.

+                            CRL.A. 195/2011

       SHER SINGH @ BACHHU                           ..... Appellant
                     Through :            Mr.Vivek Sood, Advocate.

                             Versus

       STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)                      ..... Respondent

                       Through :          Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. The appellant- Sher Singh challenges judgment dated

08.12.2010 in Sessions Case No.510/2006 arising out of FIR No.258/2004

registered at PS Alipur, by which, he was convicted under Sections

395/397/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine `

10,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant and his associates were that

on 15.07.2004, he and his associates robed Manish Gupta and caused

injuries to him. The present appellant was identified to be the person who

was armed with rod and hit Manish Gupta. One black and white TV make

Sony, suitcase containing clothes, cash, gold and silver jewellery were

found missing from the house. DD (Daily Diary) No.2A was recorded at

PS Alipur. SI Rakesh Kumar lodged First Information Report. During the

course of investigation, the appellant and his associates were arrested in

case FIR No.354/2004 PS Alipur. They made disclosure statements about

commission of crime in this case. The appellant- Sher Singh got recovered

a chain pursuant to his disclosure statement. His associates also got

recovered the robed articles. Applications were moved for Test

Identification Proceedings. The appellant and his associates refused to

take part in Test Identification Proceedings. After investigation, they all

were sent to trial. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. In their

313 statements, the assailants pleaded false implication. After considering

the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial court, by the impugned

judgment, held the present appellant- Sher Singh guilty for committing

offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. Amar Singh and

Rajinder Singh were convicted under Section 392 IPC. Sanjeep and

Laxman were convicted under Section 411 IPC.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

appellant on instructions from Sher Singh stated that the appellant has

opted not to challenge the conviction under Sections 395/397/34 IPC. He

however, prayed for modification of the order on sentence as the appellant

had already undergone substantive sentence for more than nine and a half

years.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have

examined the Trial Court record. Since the appellant has opted not to

challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Sections

395/397/34 IPC, the order on conviction of the Trial Court stands

affirmed.

5. Regarding order on sentence, it reveals that the appellant was

sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine ` 10,000/- under Section

392/397 IPC. Nominal roll dated 23.05.2013 reveals that the appellant has

already undergone 8 years, 7 months and 16 days incarceration as on

23.05.2013. He also earned remission for 10 months and 26 days. The

unexpired portion is now only 5 months and 18 days. The overall conduct

of the appellant is satisfactory. Earlier, he was convicted in case FIR

No.510/2003 and was awarded imprisonment for life. He is on bail in the

said case. In FIR No.354/04 under Section 25 Arms Act PS Alipur, he was

awarded RI for 5 years. He has completed the substantive sentence. No

criminal case is pending against him. Though the appellant has no clean

antecedents, in the interest of justice and the fact that the appellant has

been already undergone substantial period of substantive sentence which

is more than nine and a half years, the order on sentence is modified and

the appellant- Sher Singh is ordered to be released for the period already

undergone by him in this case. He shall pay fine ` 10,000/- and failing to

pay fine he shall undergo SI for 15 days. The appeal stands disposed of in

the above terms.

CRL.M.B.601/2013

Pending application for bail stands disposed of being infructuous.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

MAY 24, 2013 tr